Sizwe Dhlomo gives Helen Zille a piece of his mind about colonialism

Radio and TV personality Sizwe Dhlomo got into a spicy debate with Helen Zille on Twitter recently over her infamous comments about colonialism.

In January last year Zille was lambasted for her belief that colonialism had some positive effects.

The comments sparked widespread outrage and was the subject of a Human Rights Commission investigation.

Now, more than a year later, Sizwe had a lot to get off his chest about the topic and called Zille into his office for a chat.

It all started when Sizwe stumbled upon a tweet about the slave trade in America, and he tagged Zille on it.

To be clear: There was nothing righteous, just or positive about the Transatlantic Slave Trade or slavery in America. Nothing. Shame on school boards and systems that allow textbooks and teaching that express otherwise. https://t.co/MhOAD3HvnQ

Zille said that she agreed that was nothing positive about the slave trade.

"I agree, there was absolutely nothing positive about slavery or the slave trade. If you read the transformed SA history textbook (issued in democratic SA) you will see the acknowledgement that, despite its many evils, colonialism helped end slavery in parts of Africa."

Okay, so just to summarise before we go on, you are saying Colonialism was bad but it had positive aspects, furthermore, you are saying that it helped end slavery? Have I articulated your argument accurately?

Zille hit back at Sizwe, saying that there was a difference between colonialism and aspects of its legacy.

"You need to distinguish between them. Historical events can be inherently evil, but aspects of their legacy can turn out to be positive, although the positive does NOT cancel out the negative."

It was then that Sizwe went in hard.

"You, like it or not are a beneficiary of colonialism albeit indirectly. Your biases, whether you’re aware of them or not, make it unlikely for you to be able to accurately weigh up the negatives of colonialism versus these positives you speak of."

The motive for colonialism was never to benefit the colonised eventually. It was just an evil deed for the benefit of the coloniser.

You’ve also got to ask yourself Helen, was there any other option? Meaning without colonialism were the colonised nations doing well? Would they have continued to do so & develop at their own pace. I see no reason why the answer would be no.

Sizwe then closed his argument with a bang, saying that to defend colonialism was a complete disrespect to the millions of lives that were lost.

"Most importantly Helen, it shows a lack of remorse. It tells us that if you could go back in time, you’d still choose the colonialism route because it yielded some results that you value. It shows a deficit in morals.